Evolution refuting catholicism?

[vern_humphrey]

Led Zeppelin75:

The whole “trust god and don’t question anything of his” is so old and is used to keep people in check. Again I will repeat, If gos can do anything, and truly wills people to be saved then why dosen’t he do those things? Don’t just think to yourself the same thing, open your mind and think.

And just where did I say, “trust god and don’t question anything of his?”

I pointed out that God is not bound by your take on how he should do his business.

"
Led Zeppelin75:

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own – a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."

–Albert Einstein

And I pointed out that Einstein was attracted by Spinosa’s work. Spinosa also doubted that man as an individual survived the death of the body, comparing man to a wave in the ocean – which arises, passes out of existance, while the ocean as a whole remains. He regarded man (individual man) as a “peculiar mode of the infinite.”

This isn’t Catholic doctrine, but then Einstien wasn’t a Catholic.

Now, give me a cite where Einstein PROVED God doesn’t exist.

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

“Perhaps he finds it to be a greater good that men come to him freely, than that all be saved by compulsion? And we men are prone to depreciate those things we obtain easily. Saint Ireneaus speaks of this quite beautifully.”

I choose to reject that proposal on the simple thought that that is not what’s truly good for man-kind. Rather childish actually, wanting everyone to do it your way when it’s so much easier the other way.

"What exactly is “frail” about rewarding good and punishing evil? Is this not instead justice, which we would expect God to posses in its fullness?

And neither do orthodox Christians claim that God’s purposes are modeled after our own. It is instead our own notion of justice which falls short of perfection, not God’s."

Read into that quote a little deeper. You’ll see Einstein is right about free-will and punishing someone you made, forever!

“Now, give me a cite where Einstein PROVED God doesn’t exist.”

1. Einstein’s equations have proven that the universe does not need a creator. It is a fact that subatomic particles form on thier own.
2. Einstein’s equations shed total doubt on the myths of godly creation.
3. All of Einstein’s equations regarding this are PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACTS.

 

[dcdurel]

vern humphrey:

Evolution – that is the descent of present-day species from earlier species – is a fact.

That is incorrect. In fact, evolution is absolutley impossible.

Molecular biologist Michael Behe made that perfectly clear in his book. And not a single scientist has been able to refute is clear and reasonable arguments.

More and more scientists are beginning to realize that evolution was a nice myth, but totally without strict scientific merit.

Darwinian evolution presupposes God doesn’t create life and new species.
But, it cannot explain the beginnings of life without God.
That is why evolutionists have given up trying to explain how the first life formed from chemicals. They have totally given up on this point. And they hope everyone else ignores it.

 

[ISABUS]

November 26, 2004, 02:52 PM #14
Led Zeppelin75

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Is not going to Church really so bad?
When you don’t attend Church your relationship with God weakens. Temptation can grow. You also risk your faith being corrupted. It’s best for you to attend Church.

​

Led Zeppelin75
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?=322397#post322397


:tiphat:

 

[SCTA-1]

“Perhaps he finds it to be a greater good that men come to him freely, than that all be saved by compulsion? And we men are prone to depreciate those things we obtain easily. Saint Ireneaus speaks of this quite beautifully.”

I choose to reject that proposal on the simple thought that that is not what’s truly good for man-kind. Rather childish actually, wanting everyone to do it your way when it’s so much easier the other way.

"What exactly is “frail” about rewarding good and punishing evil? Is this not instead justice, which we would expect God to posses in its fullness?

And neither do orthodox Christians claim that God’s purposes are modeled after our own. It is instead our own notion of justice which falls short of perfection, not God’s."

Read into that quote a little deeper. You’ll see Einstein is right about free-will and punishing someone you made, forever!

“Now, give me a cite where Einstein PROVED God doesn’t exist.”

1. Einstein’s equations have proven that the universe does not need a creator. It is a fact that subatomic particles form on thier own.
2. Einstein’s equations shed total doubt on the myths of godly creation.
3. All of Einstein’s equations regarding this are PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACTS.

So all of us biological accidents that have no reason for living got here by subatomic particles that came out of nowhere.Ah,now this bio accident can rest easy.

 

[dcdurel]

Dr. Michael J. Behe writes at
<A href=“Darwin's Hostages: A decision in Kansas to question evolution dogma has given rise to hysteria and intolerance: Behe, Michael”">Darwin's Hostages: A decision in Kansas to question evolution dogma has given rise to hysteria and intolerance: Behe, Michael"
“A classic Darwinian problem is the fossil record. In his own day Darwin recognized that it did not square with his expectation of innumerable transitional forms. It still doesn’t. Although Darwinism expected anatomical differences between classes of animals to start out small and then get greater with time, the opposite is often true; as a rule very different forms of life appear within a brief time, and only later do variations within the deeper categories show up. New forms of life typically appear in the geological record with no obvious precursors, persist essentially unchanged for a time, and then disappear. Stephen Jay Gould once wrote that “the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” Aghast at Gould’s bluntness, in Science and Creationism the National Academy made a stab at damage control. It quoted Gould calling persons who cited his remark “dishonest,” because he intended " to discuss rates of evolutionary change, not to deny the fact of evolution itself.” Yet whatever he personally wanted to affirm or deny, his factual observation of the lack of transitional fossils stands. Recently Darwinism has suffered a series of embarrassments as textbook examples of evolution have turned out to be not what they seemed. The most serious reversal was in developmental biology. Based on nineteenth century drawings, the embryos of fish, amphibians, birds, and mammals were thought to look virtually identical. Much was made of the resemblance as evidence for evolution. Probably the majority of American schoolchildren in the past 50 years have seen drawings of the embryos in their biology textbooks. Carl Sagan once wrote in Parade magazine (circulation in the tens of millions) that human embryos have “something like the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian.” And eminent scientists declared that the great similarity only made sense in the light of evolution. But the embryos don’t look like that. Recent research has shown that these century old drawings, by Ernst Haeckel, an admirer of Darwin, are quite misleading. In reality the embryos are significantly different from each other (although there are similarities). This turns out to be a real puzzle. If fish evolved into amphibians, then the program that turns a fertilized egg into a fish had to have changed into the program that makes an egg into an amphibian. Drawing on Haeckel’s work, scientists thought they understood how that could happen. Crucial early development was conserved, while later, less important stages could vary. But now that scenario has been falsified. In trying to decide what we know about evolution and how we know it, the embryo fiasco is quite instructive. The scientists and textbook authors who touted the nineteenth century drawings with utter confidence are now exposed as clueless. (They include the president of the National Academy of Sciences, Bruce Alberts, whose textbook Molecular Biology of the Cell prominently cites Haeckel’s work.) They assured the public that they had strong evidence for evolution, but they didn’t even know what the embryos looked like. Their " facts" didn’t come from nature, but from their Darwinian premises."

Just think, the PRESIDENT of the National Academy of Sciences prominently cited the work of a fraud. And this fraud was taught in schools for 50 years. Has this publically, in school books been retracted? Do school books ever admit any of the frauds of evolution, from all the ape men, to the spotted moths, to the fake horse evolution. Never. They just go on promoting error after error. Why is this?

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

SCTA-1:

So all of us biological accidents that have no reason for living got here by subatomic particles that came out of nowhere.Ah,now this bio accident can rest easy.

That’s exaclty right. You may poke fun at it but it’s true. Much more credible than some big guy in the sky. I suggest you do some research on sub-atomic particles and exaclty how they form out of nothing before trashing it.

Anyhow, see my posts at December 4, 2004 08:04 PM through December 4, 2004 08:07 PM for a detaled explaination on what you seem to poke fun at.

 

[vern_humphrey]

dcdurel:

That is incorrect. In fact, evolution is absolutley impossible.

Molecular biologist Michael Behe made that perfectly clear in his book. And not a single scientist has been able to refute is clear and reasonable arguments. .

That’s simply not true.

dcdurel:

More and more scientists are beginning to realize that evolution was a nice myth, but totally without strict scientific merit…

And that’s not true, either.

dcdurel:

Darwinian evolution presupposes God doesn’t create life and new species…

Nor is that.

dcdurel:

But, it cannot explain the beginnings of life without God…

That part IS true – but Darwin never attempted to explain the beginnings of life.

dcdurel:

That is why evolutionists have given up trying to explain how the first life formed from chemicals. They have totally given up on this point. And they hope everyone else ignores it.

The beginning of life is simply outside the realm of evolution – which deals how once life exists, it is modified and transformed into new species.

 

[SCTA-1]

Led Zeppelin75:

That’s exaclty right. You may poke fun at it but it’s true. Much more credible than some big guy in the sky. I suggest you do some research on sub-atomic particles and exaclty how they form out of nothing before trashing it.

Anyhow, see my posts at December 4, 2004 08:04 PM through December 4, 2004 08:07 PM for a detaled explaination on what you seem to poke fun at.

I am actually more interested in your post dated November 26,2004 at 2:52pm in which you sounded like a God loving person giving wonderful advice about help in time of temptation.Now you refer to God as the big guy in the sky.What happened between then and now is beyond me.You sound like you are dealing with some inner turmoil between yourself and God.Atheists laugh at how we can believe in a God who always was but they expect us to believe in sub-atomic particles that come into existence from nowhere.

 

[wanerious]

Led Zeppelin75:

1. Einstein’s equations have proven that the universe does not need a creator. It is a fact that subatomic particles form on thier own.

Einstein’s equations have not “proven” this. You should know that scientific theories are never proven, only supported or contradicted by evidence. One particularly successful model of the quantum mechanics involves the idea that one may “borrow” energy from the vacuum in order to make complimentary particle pairs. This, like many other scientific models, could be modified in the future.

1. Einstein’s equations shed total doubt on the myths of godly creation.

Which Einstein equations? The gravitational field equations? This is not at all obvious. They relate the curvature due to local mass/energy fields to the motion of test particles.

1. All of Einstein’s equations regarding this are PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACTS.

I think you have been mislead regarding the true nature of science. Einstein’s gravitational theory is a very successful model of a particular set of natural phenomena.

 

[vern_humphrey]

wanerious:

Einstein’s equations have not “proven” this. You should know that scientific theories are never proven, only supported or contradicted by evidence. One particularly successful model of the quantum mechanics involves the idea that one may “borrow” energy from the vacuum in order to make complimentary particle pairs. This, like many other scientific models, could be modified in the future. .

A much better position is that Einstein’s equations were never meant to prove or disprove anything about God – and Einstein himself never claimed they did.

Einstein was not a Catholic, and tended toward a more Deist view of God (I mentioned he like Spinoza’s work). But he never claimed to have any proof of God, one way or the other.

Since he (Einstein) never asserted his work proved or disproved the existance of God, it is incumbent on those (like Led Zeplin 75) who say his equations prove something about God to show HOW they prove it – that’s what I’ve challenged him to do, and he hasn’t done it.

(To Led Zeplin 75, if you’re reading this, merely saying “They do SO prove there is no God” is not adequate.)

 

[dcdurel]

I wrote that evolution is simply impossible and Professor Michael Behe, a molecular biologist made that perfectly clear, and that not a single scientist has been able to refute his clear and reasonble arguments. Vern wrote:
vern humphrey:

That’s simply not true.
.

Of course he gave no reason why he believes it is not true.

I will give the reasons why it is true.

For example, microbiologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago declared in National Review that “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” (Shapiro 1996) In Nature University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne stated, “There is no doubt that the pathways described by Behe are dauntingly complex, and their evolution will be hard to unravel. . . . [W]e may forever be unable to envisage the first proto-pathways.” (Coyne 1996)
In a particularly scathing review in Trends in Ecology and Evolution Tom Cavalier-Smith, an evolutionary biologist at the University of British Columbia, nonetheless wrote, “For none of the cases mentioned by Behe is there yet a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the probable steps in the evolution of the observed complexity. The problems have indeed been sorely neglected–though Behe repeatedly exaggerates this neglect with such hyperboles as ‘an eerie and complete silence.’” (Cavalier-Smith 1997) Evolutionary biologist Andrew Pomiankowski agreed in New Scientist, “Pick up any biochemistry textbook, and you will find perhaps two or three references to evolution. Turn to one of these and you will be lucky to find anything better than ‘evolution selects the fittest molecules for their biological function.’” (Pomiankowski 1996) In American Scientist Yale molecular biologist Robert Dorit averred, “In a narrow sense, Behe is correct when he argues that we do not yet fully understand the evolution of the flagellar motor or the blood clotting cascade.” (Dorit 1997)

These are quotes from Behe’s response to his critics who tried to claim there were good responses to his arguments.
Here is the site if anyone wishes to read more.
arn.org/docs/behe/mb_evolutionaryliterature.htm

 

[dcdurel]

Behe writes:
A prominent claim I made in Darwin’s Black Box is that, not only are irreducibly complex biochemical systems unexplained, there have been very few published attempts even to try to explain them. This contention has been vigorously disputed not so much by scientists in the relevant fields as by Darwinian enthusiasts on the Internet. He goes on to explain how none of these sites address the fact that no one has been able to explain a Darwinian evolution of irreducibly complex biochemical systems. They all address other biochemical systems, but not the irreducibly complex biochemical systems.
Professor Behe explains:
“By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional.”
This is really not very complicated. He gives the example of a mousetrap. It is “irreducibly complex” - it requires all of its parts to work properly. There are 5 parts to a mousetrap. The mousetrap cannot work unless all 5 parts are there. Thus, if we start out with one part, it is useless, 2 parts, it is still useless, 3 parts, it still won’t work. Not until all 5 parts are present will it work. It is “irreducibly complex”.
In the same way there are thousands of irreducibly complex systems in the biological world. They simply will not work until all protiens are present. The cilia on cells consist of at least 6 proteins. Unless all six are present, it won’t work. So if one mutation occured that made present one protein. It would be useless. Darwinian natural selection could not explain the retention of this one protein, because this one protein is useless. If another mutation occured that made present another protein, this also would be useless for the cilia to work. Thus there would be no way for the enviroment to select for this mutation. Since we would need 6 mutations of the exact proteins for the cilia to work, and since all beneficial mutations are random and rare, and take millions of years, in the intervening time, and since there was no way for the enviroment to make natural selection, because the proteins would be non-functional, the cilia could never be selected for and become a permanent change. Thus evolution of even the simplest irreducibly complex systems in nature is impossible. Behe’s has an article where he explains this better:
arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm

Darwininan evolution is simply impossible.

 

[dcdurel]

Another similar example would be the origin of life from amino acids.
There is just no way that chance could explain the formation of proteins from a pool of amino acids in the sea, in which these proteins form DNA, RNA, RNA polymerase, and the other necessary enzymes, come together. And then more amino acids come together to form around all this to make a cell wall. Then after all these amino acids form this cell, it has to come to life. Thus Behe says: “In private even most evolutionary biologists will admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of life.”

So most evolutionary biologists will try to ignore the problem of the beginning of life, because that requires a creator, which they reject, and gloss over the problem and go on to say, “we only deal with the evolution of life after it has begun.” As they have said on this forum over and over.

Thus they admit life must have been created by a creator. If God must have created life, then it follows that God must have created the different species of life, because evolution can’t explain how they came about, in light of the absence of intermediate fossils, absence of a continuum of species and the genetic impossibility of large scale changes within species.

If they say, “we must exclude God”, then we must point out how Einstein and Hawking could not accept the big bang theory and were years behind everyone else, because they refused to accept the idea of a creator of the universe. It was only after they accepted the idea of a creator that they finally accepted the current scientific view of creation. In other words, to reject God before hand, is both bad logic and bad science.

 

[Orogeny]

dcdurel:

Behe writes:
A prominent claim I made in Darwin’s Black Box is that, not only are irreducibly complex biochemical systems unexplained, there have been very few published attempts even to try to explain them.

A small collection of articles that I guess Behe has ignored.

talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html

Can you help me out. I can’t seem to find the peer-reviewed technical paper that Behe set out his theory in. Which journal was that published in?

Peace

Tim

 

[vern_humphrey]

dcdurel:

I wrote that evolution is simply impossible and Professor Michael Behe, a molecular biologist made that perfectly clear, and that not a single scientist has been able to refute his clear and reasonble arguments.

One whacko with a degree and a load of sophistry does not proof make.

When the Nobel committee nominates him for “refuting” evolution, give me a call.

 

[Orogeny]

dcdurel,

Instead of trying to make it sound like it is your own research, why not just post the link for the info you have been posting. I’ll tell you what, I’ll do it for you.

trueorigin.org/behe04.asp

Shouldn’t you have at least given this article by Behe as a reference instead of just copying and pasting?

Peace

Tim

 

[wanerious]

dcdurel:

Behe writes:

“By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional.”
This is really not very complicated. He gives the example of a mousetrap. It is “irreducibly complex” - it requires all of its parts to work properly. There are 5 parts to a mousetrap. The mousetrap cannot work unless all 5 parts are there. Thus, if we start out with one part, it is useless, 2 parts, it is still useless, 3 parts, it still won’t work. Not until all 5 parts are present will it work. It is “irreducibly complex”.

Contrary to your assertion, Behe has been roundly refuted and discounted in serious scientific circles — check out the link given by Tim above. Analogies like the “mousetrap” are usually the refuge for the imprecise and unlearned. The analogy is flawed. Biological systems do not operate like the immutable constituents of Behe’s constructions, as is tiresomely pointed out by many biologists. It is only a failure of Behe’s imagination to conceive of a system of slightly different parts that work in a less functional way as a mousetrap. The crucial point is that the parts are not as simple as mousetrap parts, they can be recruited for different purposes, and the parts change over time.

A better analogy is a computer program. Typically, in a high-level language, there are a small number of keywords that can be combined with raw data in different ways. Initially, one might code a simple program to demonstrate bare functionalities for testing. As the program “evolves” to satisfy more and more challenging fitness tests, new subroutines are coded and added, existing ones are changed, to the point where a finished software product is “irreducibly complex” — one cannot simply excise an arbitrary subroutine and expect the program to function. Nevertheless, we don’t expect that the program sprang into existence in its completed form. It naturally evolved over time to satisfy some external conditions, achieving a more and more highly functional form as the routines were modified. A key point is that once new routines are dependent upon ones that have changed, an “irreducibly complex” situation is the result.

 

[vern_humphrey]

wanerious:

Contrary to your assertion, Behe has been roundly refuted and discounted in serious scientific circles — check out the link given by Tim above.

No matter how ludicrous the idea, if you look hard enough, you can find someone with a degree who supports it.

Those who rely on Behe ought to ask themselves, how many OTHER scientists have flocked to his banner.

 

[buffalo]

Led Zeppelin75:

And the church didn’t teach what 846 and 847 in the Cathechism says 50 years ago. If the Church is infallable, why do they revise docritines?

The Church speaks of organic growth. She can better understand as time goes on. This organic growth is a fuller more beautiful organism.